Replies

What difference does it make? Well, if you ever find someone who can answer the question difinitively (can show proof of same), then we can alter the discussion of right or wrong to abort based upon whether there is a human being there in the zygote age or the morula age or the blastocyst age or the fetal age.

The problem with the way this debate proceeds currently is the tendency to argue past one another ... one poster claims a single cell is definitely not a human being, another argues that if the cell is alive then to kill it means it was a human life, and yet another poster claims a continuum of life since the onset of the human species ties all levels of life together as if all levels and nuances are equal.

All the arguments applied could be sorted out with two basic facts established:

1) if one believes there is a human spirit, when does that human spirit take up residence with the human body?

2) when is there an organism present not just parts of an organism?

If we start with the common belief that a human spirit is what makes humans unique to the range of life on planet Earth, the state of not currently knowing definitvely when the spirit takes up residence with the human body argues that we ought not be slaughtering alive unborn humans since we don't know for sure that we are not murdering fellow humans. As to the second question, well science has already answered that and 'organism' is present even as a single cell at zygote age, the meandering naybob minds of some obfuscation-minded freepers notwithstanding. [And before some pompous ass tries to ditch this reasoning with the twinning argument: just because two or more organisms may be present tomorrow, doesn't mean there isn't at least one there today.]

Again, Why the interest in declaring that fertilized egg not human if not to justify abortion and embryonic stem cell research; in short...murder?

The only reason that I can see to even question it's humanity is to be able to kill it without fear of moral or legal consequences. Unless someone else can come up with some other reason. The whole *when it becomes human* argument was started by the pro-abortion side in order to justify and condone and legalize abortion.

...and yet another poster claims a continuum of life since the onset of the human species ties all levels of life together as if all levels and nuances are equal.

And yet, Lejeune answers that one pretty convincingly: “Even more impressive, during the maturation of the reproductive cells, the genetic information is reshuffled in so many ways that each conceptus receives an entirely original combination which has never occurred before and will never again. Each conceptus is unique and thus irreplaceable.”

We cannot speak of "equality" with respect to things that are unique. And they are "irreplaceable" because they are unique.

Lejeune is so right to say that anti-life arguments are symptomatic “of a severe disease of spirit,” of frank pneumopathological disorder.

Thanks for the great post, MHGinTN -- and for the ping to this wonderful article!

Thanks for the PING!

This is an issue of simple common sense to me. I think your argument is very learned. And I suppose I betray my own ignorance when I state here that I cannot understand how it is that we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into this debate at all. The Bible states:

"And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds;.....God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds....." (Genesis 1:24, 25). Then in the second chapter of Genesis, He clearly introduced the human spirit: "And the LORD God formed man, from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 2: 7)

I think that in this as in so many other matters, we have refused to listen to the voice of the Lord. Once the human egg and human sperm join, there is human life; spirit and all!